Hacker News Reader

Comment by mabbo | Hacker News Reader

Fun philosophical and likely legal debate: do people and companies have an obligation to not do things - legal things - that are to the detriment of society or the planet as a whole?

And if so, how far can you take such a rule? I don't mean to invoke the 'slippery slope' excuse. I mean that we don't really have a legal framework around "Don't be bad". We just have specific laws around things you cannot do, and the rest is a free-for-all apparently.

One might argue- and I'm not certain that I even do- that it's the role of government to make laws to codify these things that cannot be done explicitly. Because should this come to a courtroom, big oil companies might say "Yes, we knew this would harm the planet. Yes, we did it anyway. What of it? There's no law against harming the planet as a whole."

View on HN

There are extrenely broad laws against antisocial behaviour and being a neusance. So the problem isnt hard.

But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain.

> But climate change is even easier - make them liable for damages, allow all farners who lost their land to risibf sea level un bangladesh to claim compensation. Make companies liable every time an ekderly man dies of heat stroke or crops fail due to shortage of rain.

What damages? They extracted the oil and sold it to you, but you were the one who burnt it to drive climate change.

Is GM and Anheuser-Busch InBev liable for damages if you got drunk on Bud Light, crashed your Chevy, and killed someone?

Mate, I have never in my life bought fuel, I don't have a car, my stove and heating is electric, so I don't know why you are attackibg me .

You do realise 87% of emissions are created by industry, not by end users?

Or is also my fault they burnt fuel when they dwmeliver goods?

Some very special groups would have you believe that if you disagree with their product or methods you should simply take your business elsewhere.

If the world dies despite this freedom, then that's what humanity implicitly wanted all along anyway, so who is this big government to tell me, the free man, what to do or not do?

We have quite a lot of legal framework for damages and environmental externalities. But included the "legal things" qualifier in your question so that makes it into the question of lack of coverage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com